Thoughts on the Chandler / Greening Dialog on WTC1â€™s Collapse by Dr. John Wyndham

Regarding the dialog between David Chandler and Frank Greening on applying Newtonâ€™s Third Law of Motion to the â€śpile driverâ€ť theory of WTC1â€™s collapse, kudos to Chandler for his clear analysis. Greeningâ€™s arguments, for the most part, miss the point. Chandlerâ€™s rebuttal of Greening stands on its own, but the arguments are worth repeating both to affirm Chandler and to help create a scientific consensus on his analysis.

From an old copy of a widely used textbook, the 929 page University Physics by Sears, Zemansky, and Young (sixth edition), on page 4 we read â€śAn equation must always be dimensionally consistent; this means that two terms may be added or equated only if they have the same units.â€ť Greeningâ€™s equations that add or subtract M (units = mass) and dM/dt (time rate of change of mass, units = mass/time) are in basic error. Perhaps Greening can restate his equations correctly for all those interested.

Further, on page 24 of the above text, in the section titled â€śIdealized modelsâ€ť we find these words: â€śthe analysis is hopelessly complicated if we try to include all these effects; we need to make a simplified modelâ€ť and â€śan approximate description is a lot better than no description at all, which may be the alternative if the problem is so complex as to defy analysis.â€ť So, far from being naĂŻve, Chandlerâ€™s analysis of Bazant and Greeningâ€™s â€śpile driverâ€ť theory is in the best tradition of physical science. Rather than conceding any truth to this theory, Chandler uses the ancient and powerful method of reductio ad absurdum in which one starts with an assumption and then shows that the inferred results are absurd, thus invalidating the original premise.

To Chandlerâ€™s forthright responses to Greeningâ€™s arguments, one might add that the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses have nothing in common with a rock slide, as Greening suggests, unless of course the rocks are connected by steel girders. Greening does not really begin, as he implies, to â€śquantify the complexities of the WTC1 collapse.â€ť Instead, he presents a hodgepodge of statements that miss the point of Chandlerâ€™s simple argument and may befuddle the average, non-scientific reader.

Some may wonder how Greeningâ€™s E1 (energy) is related to Chandlerâ€™s F (force). Greening rephrases Chandlerâ€™s equation in terms of the energy, E1, needed to collapse one floor. His train of thought appears to be as follows: Using the equation W (work) = F (force) x Distance (d), the work or energy needed to collapse one floor is W = E1 = 3.7F where F is the downward force exerted by the upper block on the lower and 3.7 meters is the height of one story. From Chandler we have Mg - F = Ma, where F is the equal and opposite upward force of resistance. So, Mg - E1/3.7 = Ma. Dividing each side of this equation by M, we arrive at g - E1/3.7M = a, which is what Greening puts forward as a new insight. However, as Chandler notes, this is not a new insight. Greening is implicitly acknowledging Newtonâ€™s third law of motion and supporting Chandler at the same time.

The collapse time (11 - 12 seconds) for WTC1 indicates an average acceleration of 0.64g for the entire collapse. Even if the falling block accretes all the mass (without shedding), the resistive force at each stage will still be only 0.36Mg, where M is the mass above the crush front. As Chandler has pointed out, this resistive force is much less than the upward normal force of Mg when the building was standing intact. The observed collapse, if solely due to gravity, is therefore absurd. No matter how much damage occurred at the floors where the plane hit and the fires burned, the â€śpile driverâ€ť theory does not explain the progressive accelerated collapse through the undamaged floors of the building. This conclusion, by itself, indicates that explosives were used to take out the columns. Taken with all the other evidence, the case for controlled demolition is overwhelming.

Greeningâ€™s arguments do nothing to invalidate Chandlerâ€™s reasoning and conclusion. If mass is shed, or if some energy is converted into other forms, this results in a less effective â€śpile driver.â€ť The only fault I can find with Chandlerâ€™s responses is that, in his first response, he omits mass (M) from the forces he specifies as 0.64g and 0.36g. But these omissions appear to be scientific typos.

Chandlerâ€™s straightforward analysis avoids the complexity that often obscures a simple solution to a problem. This application of the laws of physics would make an excellent problem for physics students. Also, letâ€™s hope other scientists will weigh in on Chandlerâ€™s analysis. Unless someone produces a major flaw in the argument, Chandler may well have unearthed the Rosetta Stone for disproving the official story of the towersâ€™ collapses.

I wholeheartedly applaud the analyses by David Chandler and John Wyndham. Note that other physicists are likewise joining the fray such as Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Prof. Terry Morrone, Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Prof. David Griscom (a fellow of the American Physical Society). These four also have papers published in the Journalof911Studies.com (as does David Chandler), still an excellent resource IMO.

The level of activity by physicists and architects and engineers is becoming impressive, and the analyses indeed compelling regarding the falsity of the "official story" of 9/11, from a scientific point-of-view.

Nice graphs. It is refreshing to see the observed pitted against the "theoretical." Recent discussion about the "missing jolt" caused me to consider the "missing jolts," per floor; and now I learn you've dealt with that. I look forward to comments by the experts about your updated version.

Arenâ€™t there laws against murdering your fellow citizens to justify the invasion of other countries while simultaneously accusing the ones you didnâ€™t murder of being mentally ill, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theorist terrorists?

There's a beautiful scientific elegance to that main point of Chandler's finding. If you are correct, Dr. Wyndham, and Chandler has "unearthed the Rosetta Stone for disproving the official story," I hope as much will made of the issue as possible.

There is no velocity loss in the measureable fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

In response to the Missing Jolt paper the debunkers are trying to claim the tilt caused multiple separate impulses which eliminate the need for one powerful jolt. When it is then pointed out to them that the aggregate energy loss must still be the same and that there should still be a significant velocity loss, that seems to be when disingenuous attempts to discredit the person pointing these things out start to occur.

These so-called debunkers have no answer for why there is no velocity loss at any point in the fall of the upper block of the North Tower, and the fact that it actually accelerates continuously except for one short time where it is at constant velocity.

Their feeble attempt at getting around what David Chandler shows, by saying that there was 36% resistance and that the impulses are averaged in are ludicrous and disproven by the lack of deceleration at any point also.

The energy required to deform and buckle just the first floors on either side of the first collision between floors, and the conservation of momentum in the pickup of that first floor by the falling mass, would cause a 75% reduction in the velocity of the upper block.

Finally, in a last gasp they try to say that the 167 millisecond frame rate of the Sauret film is not high enough to see the impulse(s) and deceleration. They are proven wrong here by the fact that any impulse or group of impulses capable of transferring enough energy to deform the columns, of just the first floors on either side of a collision between two floors, would have dramatically slowed the upper block and it would have taken much more than 167 milliseconds for that velocity to be recovered. So the velocity would appear to have dropped in the measurements using this film if in fact there were impulses occurring which were capable of transferring enough energy to remove the floor below . However, the velocity never drops at any point in the fall.

I believe this is the Rosetta Stone showing the collapse of the North Tower had to be caused by means other than gravitational potential energy.

I haven't been at Villanova for quite some time and have thought that I wouldn't know who to see now.

I might give it a try though and just mail them a copy and explain that I am a Villanova engineering graduate who has looked into this mess and found the reality of it to be quite different from what we have been told.

Ever since I read the Bazant/Greening crush up/down paper I knew there had to be some major conflagration going on here because the paper reads like the Damon Wayans character on "In Living Color" where he comes out and talks in doublespeak using large sounding words but never really making sense.

The description of a two phase crush up/down theory just flew in the face of common sense to me. I may have two business degrees but I still had to take basic physics to fulfill my science requirement at SUNY Geneseo. Yet, even with my most basic understanding of physics I felt I could easily refute this paper using basic equal and opposite action arguments for what is clearly one fluid motion of the building coming down. Sadly I am far better at calculating ROI and ammortization tables rather than physics.

But there the paper was published at a highly respected university (certainly not known for their sports teams) and I believe it was also published in a major journal as well, correct? How did this happen? Dept heads review papers before publishing under the university name right? This is why Prof. Jones could not publish his original groundbreaking paper on WTC7 at BYU. We know it wasn't allowed because if its accuracy and validity. It is the overall political implications that kept it from being published. Would a submission of Prof. Chandler's paper he mentioned that is being peer reviewed now (or any other for that matter) to Northwestern University engineering faculty cause the original to be removed? How can they teach and engineering class regarding such a paper when the faculty member teaching the course can hardly believe it, albeit presumptuously, himself? My guess is that they avoid it all together, but I would have to imagine a student working on an engineering project or study would have handed in something similar dismissing this crush theory. (if allowed). I know there are many papers that have been written, just no public forum (outside of sites like 911blogger) that will publish them. The physics appears very straightforward to me. A smaller piece of mass could never destroy a larger piece of itself and it seems absurd to even entertain the notion. My utmost thanks for any who can give me a point of view on this.

Peace

DTG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"History is not history unless it is the truth." â€”Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

after I found his e-mail address at Northwestern on-line. I also included a short note where I told him we found the upper block of WTC 1 does not decelerate at all during the 114 feet we could measure it.

I now know that at least for the last couple of months that Dr. Bazant has been fully aware of this issue brought up in David Chandler's work and the Missing Jolt paper, as Dr. Greening has admitted discussing the Missing Jolt paper with him.

A pile driver is a mechanical device used to drive piles into soil to provide foundation support for buildings or other structures. The term is also used in reference to members of the construction crew that work with pile-driving rigs.

One traditional type of pile driver includes a heavy weight placed between guides so that it is able to freely slide up and down in a single line. It is placed upon a pile. The weight is raised, which may involve the use of hydraulics, steam, diesel, or manual labour. When the weight reaches its highest point it is then released and smashes on to the pile in order to drive it into the ground.

The Bazant and Greening â€śpile driverâ€ť theory requires a hammering mass impacting the top of a rigid body, which then moves in response to the impact. Where is that hammer? It canâ€™t be the rigid body consisting of the top several floors of WTC 1 seen accelerating downward as the remainder of the tower stands still below it. Why not? Wellâ€¦what severed those top floors from the rest of the building and somehow created space below them to permit them to fall as a unit? And what makes anyone who has watched the video think that this falling unit hammered the top of the bottom 98 storeys? Wouldnâ€™t that have caused the roof line speed to suddenly drop to zero at impact?